Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 17, 2025

Schei v. AT&T Inc.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-00718
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureContractIntellectual Property
In one sentence

Judge Failla's Network Apps v. AT&T Mobility order granted dismissal of contract and patent claims but denied dismissal of the inventorship claim.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract and patent-infringement claims were dismissed through the granted portion of the defendants’ motion. The correction-of-inventorship claim was not dismissed through the denied portion of the motion. The opinion does not state the specific relief sought or provide further details about the claims.

What happened

In Network Apps, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint under a rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legal claim.

The court granted the motion as to the breach-of-contract and patent-infringement claims, but denied it as to the correction-of-inventorship claim. The order also terminated several pending motions and required the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla further ordered the parties to suggest redactions to this opinion and an earlier opinion before the court files public redacted versions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Schei v. AT&T Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00718
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Mar. 17, 2025

Background

Network Apps, LLC, Kyle Schei, and John Wantz sued AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Ruling on the Motion

The court’s March 17, 2025 sealed opinion and order granted the defendants’ motion as to the breach-of-contract and patent-infringement claims. It denied the motion as to the correction-of-inventorship claim. The order does not decide the ultimate merits of the inventorship claim; it states only that the claim was not dismissed at this stage.

Other Orders

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 178, 179, 184, and 187. The parties were ordered to confer and submit a proposed case-management plan by April 7, 2025. They were also ordered to submit joint letters by April 14, 2025 suggesting redactions to the March 22, 2023 opinion and the March 17, 2025 opinion. The court stated that it would then file redacted versions of both opinions on the public docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.